Moreover, Rasmussen’s polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In just 12 cases, Rasmussen’s polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases — that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued.

Rasmussen’s polls — after a poor debut in 2000 in which they picked the wrong winner in 7 key states in that year’s Presidential race — nevertheless had performed quite strongly in in 2004 and 2006. And they were about average in 2008. But their polls were poor this year.

I have seen NO commercials for the presidential candidates. I got them back in the primaries, which seems odd. If during the general elections the Republicans are basically willing to concede that they're not going to win California, why advertise so heavily in California during the primaries? Obviously because it carries a lot of weight in the primary, which should probably be adjusted. Just doesn't make sense for a state that will almost never vote Republican in a presidential election to carry a significant weight deciding who the candidate they won't vote for anyway is going to be.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/25/2012 3:12:00 PM (view original):It doesn't make much sense that a state will almost never vote in a different direction than they historically have.

******* brainwashed bots. And that goes for all of them.

Why? I think it makes perfect sense.

Unless the demographics of a state change or the voting/election/campaign contribution laws change or the policy stance(s) of a party change, why wouldn't people continue to vote for the candidate from the party that most closely represents their own personal views?